It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 104
49
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

The LM descent engine also had an influence on the ground by scouring away smaller particles, which was both observed and photographed by astronauts on the ground,and by producing more subtle changes only visible by repeat observations from a distance. The latter effect was reported at the time, and has also been observed since by other spacecraft and at locations for other spacecraft landings, as well as empirically demonstrated on Earth.

You have variously denied all of these things, and had your backside handed to you every time.

Do you have anything other than ignorance, prejudice and your woefully poor understanding of the available data to support your case?


I have actual proof. You have ignorance, prejudice and blatant denial of the actual proof.

You claim the LM caused a disturbance of soil which was "both observed and photographed by astronauts on the ground..". I assume this is your claim for the area of soil (mainly) below the LM? While I find no evidence for that claim, it is your next claim, below, that needs to be addressed ...

".and by producing more subtle changes only visible by repeat observations from a distance."

"Subtle", "diffuse", and "a very gradual change"!

You can use any terms you like, it does not explain away the fact NOTHING is seen, in ANY of the 'surface' images.

Next point..

"The latter effect was reported at the time, and has also been observed since by other spacecraft and at locations for other spacecraft landings,"

There is NO such "effect". And as I've already explained, the observations by other spacecraft from orbit confirm that a feature exists at that area of the lunar surface, which does not help your case, but rather, it only adds to mine.

Last point...

"as well as empirically demonstrated on Earth."

Again, you bring this claim up, and again, you've failed to support it with anything.

Oh, right, you're going to tell me 'I already posted a source about it, and I'm not about to go through all of this thread looking to find it for you!'

If you keep claiming it, you should be able to support it, or at least show where you had posted your source earlier.

Do you even have any source for it?




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   

a reply to: turbonium1

I have actual proof.


Care to show your proof? If you can't then your "proof" is mere opinion.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




I have actual proof.



Wooo-hoooooooo!!!


After 104 pages, we're actually going to see some proof. This is exciting. Lay it on us. Please.
edit on 10/10/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/10/2016 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.


curious.. how would you describe this picture?


explain to me
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why the regolith within the red circle, darker than the regolith surrounding it?


Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.


so will you continue to ignore this little image??


Since the issue is about the large area of 'disturbed soil', which is not seen in any of the Apollo 'surface' images.

You already know that, of course. But, you'll keep on trying to avoid it, and divert it, just as you have here.

It won't work, no matter how many times you try it,



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Everything you deny has been shown to be true, repeatedly, every claim that no evidence has been provided has been shown to be false, repeatedly, and every claim you have made that you have evidence always amounts to nothing. Always.

You've also proven, again, that you don't read the links you're given, or even the content of posts you quote.

If you have actual proof of anything you have ever claimed I suggest you provide it You never have, so I don't expect that to happen now.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.


curious.. how would you describe this picture?


explain to me
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why the regolith within the red circle, darker than the regolith surrounding it?


Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.


so will you continue to ignore this little image??


Since the issue is about the large area of 'disturbed soil', which is not seen in any of the Apollo 'surface' images.


Apart from that area of disturbed soil in that Apollo surface image?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.


curious.. how would you describe this picture?


explain to me
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why the regolith within the red circle, darker than the regolith surrounding it?


Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.


so will you continue to ignore this little image??


Since the issue is about the large area of 'disturbed soil', which is not seen in any of the Apollo 'surface' images.

You already know that, of course. But, you'll keep on trying to avoid it, and divert it, just as you have here.

It won't work, no matter how many times you try it,


it does show a large area of disturbed regolith.. im not surprised you dont recognise it.. majority of the image is showing disturbed regolith, im also not surprised that you think ive circled the only disturbed regolith.

all you need to do is tell me two things that will put this image into perspective for you:
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why is the regolith within the red circle darker than the regolith surrounding it?


edit on 10-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.


curious.. how would you describe this picture?


explain to me
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why the regolith within the red circle, darker than the regolith surrounding it?


Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.


so will you continue to ignore this little image??


Since the issue is about the large area of 'disturbed soil', which is not seen in any of the Apollo 'surface' images.


Apart from that area of disturbed soil in that Apollo surface image?


I've already explained this to you.

You can look at a sci-fi film, and point out how it matches to actual 0g. They appear to be floating around in space. If you didn't know it was a movie, you'd think they really were in space.

But then, you notice something. You go back through the floating scene, frame by frame. And you find several frames that give it away as a fake - perhaps it is a support line found in the background, which they didn't notice during the editing process, or whatever.

These few frames might be a fraction of a second, picked out of a 2 hour-long movie. However, that is all it takes to prove, beyond a doubt, that they were NOT floating around in space.

Pointing out how everything else matches up perfectly to the 'astronauts' being in real 0g does not matter in the least. The only thing that matters is if a few frames, over a fraction of a second, do NOT match up to them being in genuine 0g.

Same as your footprints. They are irrelevant. Only the 'large disturbance' is relevant.

Get it?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Dude!!!

Where's this "actual proof" you said you had? Don't keep us hanging!



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Except you'e never done anything that shows any of the Apollo evidence to be fake. No-one has.

It's quite evident to everyone reading this that you have zero reading comprehension skills and do not read the links that are provided (usually either at your insistence they don't exist or to show you how wrong you are).

It is pretty obvious that you don't want to pay attention to the paths left by the astronauts' feet and vehicles on the ground, photographs, live TV and 16mm images all of which have been publicly available long before the LRO, Kaguya or Chandrayaan came along to verify that they are a true record of events. You don't want to pay attention to them because they prove you wrong. Again.

It's also pretty obvious that you don't have any evidence to support your claims that photos exist showing what you clam are Apollo artifacts disguised as rocks and craters. You also have no answer for the fact that the things that actually are rocks and craters were not photographed until Apollo went there, and that China, Japan , India and the USSR have photographs that prove them to be correct.

You have, in short, jack. You are just another blowhard keyboard warrior full of sound and fury signifying nothing, you have nothing but your lack of knowledge and a tenuous grasp of what constitutes fact to keep your wildly inaccurate view of history, science and engineering alive.

Post your proof, as you constantly demand everyone else does, or give up.
edit on 10/10/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: grandma



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.


curious.. how would you describe this picture?


explain to me
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why the regolith within the red circle, darker than the regolith surrounding it?


Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.


so will you continue to ignore this little image??


Since the issue is about the large area of 'disturbed soil', which is not seen in any of the Apollo 'surface' images.

You already know that, of course. But, you'll keep on trying to avoid it, and divert it, just as you have here.

It won't work, no matter how many times you try it,


it does show a large area of disturbed regolith.. im not surprised you dont recognise it.. majority of the image is showing disturbed regolith, im also not surprised that you think ive circled the only disturbed regolith.

all you need to do is tell me two things that will put this image into perspective for you:
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why is the regolith within the red circle darker than the regolith surrounding it?



Why does it not match the large 'disturbance', claimed to be around the LM, claimed to be more reflective than undisturbed soil beyond it?

Again, you have to show me 'surface' images that match up to the images from orbit. The orbit images show a large disturbance, supposedly around the Apollo 15 LM, that is more reflective than the undisturbed soil beyond it.

This is the area you claim is so subtle, that it is barely visible on the surface. But you claim that it can be seen in surface images, only it's very subtle, and hardly noticeable...right?

It's like you're saying there is a ghost is an image you show me. You say it's very subtle, and diffuse, which makes the ghost very hard to see, at a glance. But if you look really close, you'll find it is there!

So I'd ask you to outline where you see the ghost in your image. Just like I've asked you to outline where you see the large disturbance of soil around the LM in surface images.

But you could not outline your ghost, just like you cannot outline your large 'disturbance'.

Because you cannot outline something you cannot see. Since it is not actually there, in the images, and you know it.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Why does it not match the large 'disturbance', claimed to be around the LM, claimed to be more reflective than undisturbed soil beyond it?


im asking you why the disturbance is like that.. i already have my answers i want to know how and what you think.



Because you cannot outline something you cannot see. Since it is not actually there, in the images, and you know it.


everything that is required to show you where and what the disturbance from the LM engine is and what it looks like, is in the picture.

i cannot continue to explain until i know what you think about the disturbance that caused by the bootprints and the darkened regolith within the red circle and the regolith outside the red circle..

have a guess or plainly say you have no clue.


i need your opinion atleast:
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why is the regolith within the red circle darker than the regolith surrounding it?
edit on 10-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


AHEM: Your Proof PLEASE

Edit:

Thank You

edit on 10-10-2016 by MuonToGluon because: Edited because I was rude.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon

One hundred and four pages of the same "proof". I wouldn't hold my breath, were I you. I'm certainly not going to.

There has been, since 1969, many accusations of a moon landing hoax, with so called proof. None, not one iota, of which has withstood any sort of scrutiny.

Turbos "proof" will be more of the same, assuming, of course, he has any.

One hundred and four pages...



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:19 AM
link   
The 'disturbance' claimed to be around the LM is around 200 m long, and about 50 m wide, at most. It is shaped irregularly, though, so the dimensions are used as a guideline, for its maximum range.

This is where the Apollo 'surface' images are used. Many of those images show the LM, and the surface around the LM, which we can see goes well over 200 m beyond the LM.

That is, the images show the surface where your 'disturbance' is, and beyond it, where it is undisturbed.

There is absolutely no 'disturbance' seen in these images. The surface is unchanged.

You cannot outline this 'disturbance', in any of the surface images, because it is not there.

Now, you claim the 'disturbance' is seen from orbit, and not from the surface. Somehow, the disturbed surface is reflecting more light than the undisturbed soil, but only in an upwards direction, towards orbit. It does not reflect more light in any other direction, so it cannot be noticed on the surface.

Even if that crapola was true, it wouldn't work. Because the astronauts would have been walking right ON the 'disturbance'. If the 'disturbance' only reflected more light upward, they'd see it, up close, at the source!

This is an utterly ridiculous argument. Absurd.

But it's all you've got - a fantasy-land claim, in hopes of saving your precious Apollo fable.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1


AHEM: Your Proof PLEASE

Edit:

Thank You


THE PROOF IS ALL OF THE APOLLO 15 SURFACE IMAGES, WHICH SHOW NO DISTURBANCE OF SOIL AS CLAIMED TO BE ABOUT 200m by 50m IN SIZE, ALL AROUND THE LM!!

You're welcome.


edit on 10-10-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

That's it?! That's your "actual proof"?!

0/10 for effort.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Uh-huh

onebigmonkey.com...



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

There is absolutely no 'disturbance' seen in these images. The surface is unchanged.




all you need to do is give me your opinion on why the red circle is darker than the surrounding regolith..

you have been giving your opinion on everything else, but for some reason you cant here..

are you trying to ignore it?? what was it you said about ignoring things??
or is it because you dont have the slightest clue, even though it is your own opinion and doesnt need to be a fact??

answer these simple questions regarding this one image:
1. why the boot prints are so bright?
2. why is the regolith within the red circle darker than the regolith surrounding it?

if you cannot answer these simple questions with your opinion, you have no right to claim that the disturbance cannot be seen.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
THE PROOF IS ALL OF THE APOLLO 15 SURFACE IMAGES, WHICH SHOW DISTURBANCE OF SOIL AS CLAIMED TO BE ABOUT 200m by 50m IN SIZE, ALL AROUND THE LM!!

You're welcome.



Oh my, I hope you do not mind that I fixed the error you made in your statement by removal of one extra word you accidentally put in. (I did this because I think you think I was yelling, no I just increased and bolded the size of the text, so I can see how you could make a simple mistake)

You are most welcomed! I do see your proof now.

edit on 10-10-2016 by MuonToGluon because: Clarification



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join